Sustainability 08 00083 PDF

sustainability
Article
True Green and Sustainable University Campuses?
Toward a Clusters Approach
Giulia Sonetti 1 , Patrizia Lombardi 1 and Lorenzo Chelleri 2, *
Received: 29 November 2015; Accepted: 31 December 2015; Published: 15 January 2016
Academic Editor: Marc A. Rosen
1 Interuniversity Department of Regional & Urban Studies and Planning, Politecnico di Torino and
Università di Torino, Viale Mattioli, 39, 10125 Turin, Italy; giulia.sonetti@polito.it (G.S.);
patrizia.lombardi@polito.it (P.L.)
2 Gran Sasso Science Institute (GSSI), Urban Studies Unit, Viale F. Crispi 7, 67100 L’Aquila, Italy
* Correspondence: lorenzo.chelleri@gssi.infn.it; Tel.: +34-690-253-452
Abstract: Campus greening is often the first step universities take towards sustainability. However,
the diffusion of sustainability reporting methodologies and rankings is still at an early stage, and
is biased in mainly measuring energy efficiency indicators while omitting basic features enabling
meaningful comparisons among centers or addressing social (users) aspects related to long term
sustainability transitions. This paper aims to introduce a critical perspective on sustainability
university frameworks through: (i) a review of current Campus Sustainability Assessments (CSAs);
(ii) performing and comparing the results obtained from the application of two internationally
recognized CSAs (namely, Green Metric and ISCN) to two case studies (the Politecnico di Torino,
in Italy, and the Hokkaido University, In Japan) and, finally, (iii) proposing a new CSA approach
that encompasses clusters of homogeneous campus typologies for meaningful comparisons and
university rankings. The proposed clusters regard universities’ morphological structures (campuses
nested within city centers versus outside of a city compact ones), climatic zones and functions. At the
micro scale, the paper introduces the need for indicators beyond measuring pure energy efficiency,
but which are attentive to local and societal constraints and provide long-term tracking of outcomes.
This, better than a sheer record of sustainability priority actions, can help in building homogenous
university case studies to find similar and scalable success strategies and practices, and also in
self-monitoring progress toward achieving truly sustainable university campuses.
Keywords: university campus; sustainability assessment frameworks; energy indicators
1. Introduction
The key role of higher education institutions in the transition to a more sustainable society
has been recognized and highlighted for almost three decades [1]. In respect to the most pressing
urban and planetary sustainability challenges [2], universities are identified as key hubs within cities
for innovation and environmental education, representing a precious opportunity for enabling the
necessary generational behavioural change toward taking on more sustainable attitudes in daily
lives [3,4]. To be credible in this guidance role, the university in primis has to behave responsibly and
wisely in response to sustainability issues in the management of the energy and human resources of the
campuses. A sustainable university has been defined as a higher educational institution that addresses,
involves and promotes, on a regional or a global level, the minimisation of negative environmental,
economic, societal, and health effects generated in the use of their resources in order to fulfil its
functions of teaching, research, outreach and partnership, and stewardship in ways to help society
make the transition to sustainable lifestyles [5]. At the same time, Cole highlighted the key role
of sustainable campus communities, since “they actively engage the knowledge of the university
Sustainability 2016, 8, 83; doi:10.3390/su8010083 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2016, 8, 83 2 of 23
community to address the ecological and social challenges that we face now and in the future” [6]
(p. 30). The younger generations can indeed play a major role in addressing sustainability [7,8]
by understanding and implementing “holistic and trans-disciplinary approaches that address the
four dimensions of sustainability and their interrelations” [9] (p. 140). However, the management
of this social responsibility transition, and the adaptation of campuses’ built environment toward
a more sustainable system, is not a trivial matter [10]. For instance, educational functions account
for 17% of the overall non-residential building stock in the EU [11]. Knowing that buildings are
responsible for about 40% of total final energy requirements in Europe, the educational sector accounts
for 6.8% of the total EU energy consumption. To give an idea of magnitude beyond the European
case, the educational sector in China accounts for 40% of the total energy consumption in public
buildings [12], with 30 million students and 1.87 GJ/m2 of energy consumed in 2007 [13]. In this
way, universities are not only hubs for innovation and environmental education, but important actors
within the urban setting, which must draw on a complex set of accounting indicators, dealing not
only with environmental performances, but critically addressing economic, political, social and ethical
issues [14]. In this context, campus sustainability assessments (CSAs) have been emerging, and have
been used for more than a decade, as tools for identifying best practices, communicating goals and
experiences, and measuring progress towards achieving the concept of a sustainable campus. Even if
the literature in the late 1990s proposed detailed environmental reports, mostly by different North
American universities voluntary initiatives (one of the first was “The Student Environmental Action
Coalition—Campus ecology in 1993), there was not much relying on empirical data or common
reference frameworks [15,16]. However, with the growing interest in campus environmental impacts,
as a consistent part of the built environment, many projects launched wider initiatives for cross
comparison and campus assessment [17]. In the last decade, different CSAs have been proposed
at national and regional scales around the globe [18], varying greatly in purpose, scope, function,
state of development and closeness to an “ideal tool” [19]. Recent research on CSAs has focused on
defining and examining the role of metrics, even questioning the necessity of them [20–22]. Shriberg
reviewed 11 assessment tools and found that many excel in capturing data on environmental and
sustainability performance, as well as process-oriented information, or they also provide the grounds
for strategic planning, by stating goals and methods [19]. However, they do not provide mechanisms
for comparison (nationally and internationally), because they traditionally stress material utilization,
CO2 emissions, and regulatory compliance, which is different from country to country. Furthermore,
measuring sustainability requires a major leap beyond the energy efficiency paradigm, addressing
social, economic and environmental impacts. For instance, an eco-efficiency indicator would provide
the amount of kWh per square meter per year, while a sustainability indicator should look at the trend
in consumption reduction over the years, or the percentage of people satisfied with the comfort level
in their working environment [23]. Because of this, CSAs could be powerful tools for both triggering
and supporting the organizational change process, or dangerously used as a mere façade, contributing
to green-washing the business as usual unsustainable campus management [24]. In line with this
special issue topic and objectives, the paper reviews some of the current CSAs, underlining their limits
implementing effective improvements in the overall sustainability performance assessment method.
The Politecnico di Torino (POLITO), in Turin (Italy), and the Hokkaido University (HOKUDAI),
in Sapporo (Japan), are assessed according to “Green Metric” and “ISCN report” CSAs. The research
design justifying such international (European–Asian) comparison relies on POLITO scoring relatively
low positions in world university rankings (in the Green Metric one, for instance, it occupies the
280th/361 vs. the 209th position of HOKUDAI, in 2014) but not reflecting a quite virtuous energy
consumption path and wise resource management practices as revealed by in-depth, focused research.
Although Turin and Sapporo Campuses do not have many similar characteristics in terms of urban
settings, population, density per square meters and functions, they are still considered in the same
international ranking as many other campuses around the globe, with evident comparability limits
and sustainability performance mismatching. A new approach is therefore proposed, aiming at
capturing current sustainability performances and local constraints both at the macro assessment level
(i.e., within the frameworks) and at the micro-level (i.e., within indicators). The objective is to overcome
the institutional and intrinsic limits of current CSAs, and help sustainability managers to translate
strategic plans into powerful tools for self-tracking, goal setting and the promotion of transferable
practices toward truly achieving sustainable university campuses and communities.
2. Method
This paper critique of current CSAs, and their limits, has been developed through an extensive
literature review, and by proposing two case studies. The Politecnico di Torino (POLITO), in Turin
(Italy), and the Hokkaido University (HOKUDAI) have been measured by the two most used typologies
of CSAs: the “Green Metric” ranking (based on quantitative metric) and the “ISCN report” (based
on individual and qualitative display of sustainability initiatives). The reason why the Green Metric
and the ISCN have been selected is twofold: they are not country-related sustainability report tools.
They are also largely diffused, with more than 360 (Green Metric) and 70 (ISCN) participants from
20 countries. Moreover, they stand as examples of the two main functions of CSAs: the auditing
of local initiatives (ISCN), and the reporting of sustainability indicators according to a fixed set of
criteria (Green Metric). The first type encompasses a list of self-elected criteria adherent to general
areas of impacts (mobility, energy, third mission). The second one allows comparing universities’
performances (communicated via self-compiled questionnaires and retrieving public data display)
at the same ranking. Indicators to compile the two CSAs for the Turin case (Appendix B) have been
calculated drawing data from surveys, focus groups, interviews, the POLITO living lab (so from smart
metering systems and bills) and literature (official documents, maps, Archibus facility management
systems) available at POLITO. For the Hokkaido case, different fieldwork was undertaken at the
HOKUDAI campuses, recollecting the necessary data from the Hokkaido University Sustainability
Office and from stakeholders’ meetings and surveys (interviewees were selected mainly based on
their level of involvement with sustainability initiatives and their organizational position in the
university). To identify potential candidates, an extensive list was initially developed for both
studies, and adjusted based on referrals provided by the first interviewees (Appendix C). Each of the
23 interviews lasted on average 60 min, and was conducted in Italian or English. Four main themes
were covered during the interviews: sustainable campus initiatives (according to the area of expertise
and knowledge of the interviewed), in fieri activities, governance of the decision-making process and
management control systems (and more particularly about data collection and use). The interview
protocol was adapted to each event (focus group, meetings, and surveys) and to the stakeholder profile.
The various degrees of engagement in sustainability initiatives of the interviewees, and the numerous
uncoordinated sustainability initiatives that have been carried out by students and professors, opened
up the opportunity to develop a dedicated team in order to manage the different stakeholders that
emerged. This level of management would be useful both regarding the effectiveness of the actions
indicated in this report and the relationships that the University must inevitably establish with a series
of third parties. The research on this topic may also enrich the outcomes of the evaluation procedures
aimed at informing and communicating data in different ways through different indicators.
The other relevant source of information to complement the information obtained from the
interviews came from a review of all the internal and external documents. The chronology of
university sustainability initiatives (both public and private documents consisting with annual
reports, websites, activity reports, campus assessments, internal mail, PowerPoint presentations
and the POLITO Archibus data-base) was obtained online or provided by the interviewees.
The catalyser for all these crosscutting sustainability initiatives resources was the POLITO living
lab and the Hokkaido Sustainability Office. The monitoring system in POLITO is based on the
acquisition of data from different plants and flows equipped with meters, smart meters and
a heterogeneous data logger (Most of these information are accessible to everyone retrieving the website
http://smart-greenbuilding.polito.it/) The Sustainability Office in HOKUDAI acts as a collector of
and facility
bills, management
purchases and works closely
and facility management with
and works departments,
closely institutes institutes
with departments, and other
andrelated
other
organizations in taking steps to achieve campus sustainability.
related organizations in taking steps to achieve campus sustainability.
3. CSA Frameworks: Why They are Not Mirroring Actual Sustainability Practices?
3. CSA Frameworks: Why They are Not Mirroring Actual Sustainability Practices?
As
As remarked
remarked in in
thethe
introduction, although
introduction, some virtuous
although universities
some virtuous disclose activities
universities disclose correlated
activities
to their green image, and have for 20 years, the diffusion of systematic sustainability reports
correlated to their green image, and have for 20 years, the diffusion of systematic sustainability (SR) is
still in early stages overall in Europe. Many literature reviews focused on different reasons for this
reports (SR) is still in early stages overall in Europe. Many literature reviews focused on different
gap, trying to seek out a new taxonomy for examining the multiple roles of campus sustainability
reasons for this gap, trying to seek out a new taxonomy for examining the multiple roles of campus
assessments in organizational change, barriers in the organizational framework [25], lack of integrated
sustainability assessments in organizational change, barriers in the organizational framework [25],
strategy among the core areas of university stakeholders [26], different purposes and drivers for their
lack of integrated strategy among the core areas of university stakeholders [26], different purposes
adoption [27], sheer green-washing goals, or lack of metrics for comparability [14]. The different classes
and drivers for their adoption [27], sheer green‐washing goals, or lack of metrics for comparability
of problems related to the current sustainability framework development and adoption are shown in
[14]. The different classes of problems related to the current sustainability framework development
Figure 1, to highlight the focus of this study and the reasons for it. In particular, In Figure 1, the left
and adoption are shown in Figure 1, to highlight the focus of this study and the reasons for it. In
yellow boxes
particular, In indicate
Figure 1, the responsibility
the for the
left yellow boxes implementation
indicate of solutions
the responsibility related
for the to the absence
implementation of
of sustainability
solutions related (SUS)
to the initiatives
absence (first block), of SUS
of sustainability reporting
(SUS) (second
initiatives block)
(first andof
block), the inefficacy
SUS in
reporting
reporting such initiatives in terms of practical outcomes (third block). In the light blue rectangle on the
(second block) and the inefficacy in reporting such initiatives in terms of practical outcomes (third
right, the process needed to maintain the achieved “truly sustainable campus” (blue ellipse) is detailed.
block). In the light blue rectangle on the right, the process needed to maintain the achieved “truly
The effective translation of the CSA framework into practice (red rhombus step) is the evaluative gap
sustainable campus” (blue ellipse) is detailed. The effective translation of the CSA framework into
this study wants to bridge. The red arrows coming from it points to the area of weaknesses more
practice (red rhombus step) is the evaluative gap this study wants to bridge. The red arrows coming
directly related to current CSAs, which can be broken down into two main levels: at the macro-level,
from it points to the area of weaknesses more directly related to current CSAs, which can be broken
the inability to compare different campuses; at the micro-level, the inefficacy of some indicators in
down into two main levels: at the macro‐level, the inability to compare different campuses; at the
representing actual sustainability performance.
micro‐level, the inefficacy of some indicators in representing actual sustainability performance.

Figure 1. Defferent classes of problems related to current sustainability framework development and
Figure 1. Defferent classes of problems related to current sustainability framework development and
adoption. Source: elaborated from authors.
adoption. Source: elaborated from authors.
Of course,
Of course, there
there is black/white
is no no black/white correspondence
correspondence amongamong the and
the boxes boxes
the and the categories
categories of
of problems
problems outlined in the diagram. For instance, there could be no correlation
outlined in the diagram. For instance, there could be no correlation at all among sustainability at all among
sustainability
assessment andassessment and reporting
reporting activities, while someactivities, while some
authors consider authors
the two consider Derrick
as synonymous. the two as
even
synonymous. Derrick even raised the questions whether these indicators actually measure
raised the questions whether these indicators actually measure what sustainability is and why, and also what
sustainability is and why, and also whether the data used for ranking systems is just another signal
whether the data used for ranking systems is just another signal of “institutional performativity” [21].
of “institutional performativity” [21]. Few studies have yet assessed and thoroughly explored the
change agents’ roles and implications for CSAs in truly contributing to higher education institutions’
Few studies have yet assessed and thoroughly explored the change agents’ roles and implications
Sustainability 2016, 8, 83 for
5 of 24
CSAs in truly contributing to higher education institutions’ sustainability transitions [28,29]. Lang
evensustainability transitions [28,29]. Lang even warns that “there are very limited correlations between
warns that “there are very limited correlations between institutional environmental performance
andinstitutional environmental performance and adoption of campus sustainability initiatives, be they
adoption of campus sustainability initiatives, be they targeted operational or coordination and
targeted
planning bestoperational
practices, or or coordination and planning
curricular, co-curricular best practices,
or research or curricular,
activities. Conversely, co‐curricular or
there are strong
research activities. Conversely, there are strong correlations between environmental
correlations between environmental performance and campus characteristics, namely, institution type performance
andand campus characteristics, namely, institution type and climate zone” [30] (p. 474). This is a macro‐
climate zone” [30] (p. 474). This is a macro-gap recorded also by the Ministry of Education in
gap recorded also by the Ministry of Education in Japan [31], in a chart (Figure 2) where different
Japan [31], in a chart (Figure 2) where different energy consumptions of Japanese universities are
energy consumptions of Japanese universities are set against their related area in km2. Three different
set against their related area in km2 . Three different types of universities are therefore identified as
types of universities are therefore identified as displaying a second homogeneous trend of
displaying a second homogeneous trend of consumption, namely medical colleges, “megaversities”
consumption, namely medical colleges, “megaversities” (i.e., the American‐style huge and mixed
(i.e., the American-style huge and mixed campus, after Clark Kerr’s famous neologism), and colleges of
campus, after Clark Kerr’s famous neologism), and colleges of education. This, plus other evidence
education. This, plus other evidence from the cited gaps in the literature on CSAs, led this research to
from the cited gaps in the literature on CSAs, led this research to focus on how to merge similar
focus on how to merge similar campuses into clusters. This article proposes clusters including similar
campuses into clusters. This article proposes clusters including similar institution types, climate areas
institution types, climate areas and urban contexts are suggested in order to bridge the gap found at
and urban contexts are suggested in order to bridge the gap found at the macro‐level regarding the
thelack of comparability criteria of different campuses using the same CSA.
macro-level regarding the lack of comparability criteria of different campuses using the same CSA.

Figure 2. A benchmarking method for facility management in Japanese universities. Re‐drawn from [31].
Figure 2. A benchmarking method for facility management in Japanese universities. Re-drawn from [31].
Regarding the micro‐level gap in current CSAs, the indicators’ inability to communicate
Regarding the micro-level gap in current CSAs, the indicators’ inability to communicate effectively
effectively the sustainability initiatives and performance was a pitfall already outlined by Shriberg in
the2002.
sustainability initiatives
At the base of this and performance
issue was
lies the lack of ameasurability
pitfall already(and
outlined by Shriberg
therefore in 2002.
indicators At the
and their
base of this issue
potential lies the into
translation lack of measurability
practices) (and social
of certain therefore
and indicators and their
environmental potential
inputs and translation
outputs.
into practices) of certain social and environmental inputs and outputs. Furthermore, the old “what
Furthermore, the old “what gets measured, gets done” management paradigm explains why going
beyond
gets measured,the eco‐efficiency approach
gets done” management remains hard. In
paradigm Shriberg
explains (2002),
why going11 sustainability assessment
beyond the eco-efficiency
tools developed specifically for universities were compared. This paper added to these another four
approach remains hard. In Shriberg (2002), 11 sustainability assessment tools developed specifically
forprotocols
universities(Green
wereMetric, UNI‐Metrics,
compared. ISCN,
This paper STARS),
added to include
to these recent—and
another more related
four protocols (Greento the
Metric,
EU/Italian background—CSAs. Their major weaknesses and strengths have
UNI-Metrics, ISCN, STARS), to include recent—and more related to the EU/Italian background—CSAs. been summed up in
Table 1.
Their major weaknesses and strengths have been summed up in Table 1.
Table 1. Summary of the major strengths and weaknesses of some of the current sustainability assessmens. Source: authors, adapting the table in [19].
Assessment Tool Major Strengths Major Weaknesses

Comprehensive Little use of the term, “sustainability”
National Wildlife Federation’s State of the Combines eco-efficiency and sustainability Small sample within each college/university
Campus Environment Identifies barriers, drivers, incentives and motivations US—Canada related
Identifies processes and current status
Emphasizes (cross-functional) sustainability as a process No mechanism for comparison or benchmarking
Sustainability Assessment Questionnaire Useful as a conversational and teaching tool Difficult for large universities to complete
Probing questions that identify weaknesses and set goals
Flexible framework for institutional comparisons Difficult to comprehend
Auditing instrument for sustainability in higher
Process-orientation which helps to prioritise and set goals
education (AISHE) Motivations are potentially excluded
through developmental stages
Created through international consensus
Process-orientation that moves beyond eco-efficiency with
Difficult to measure and compare
Higher Education 21’s Sustainability Indicators a relatively small set of indicators
Recognises sustainability explicitly and strategically Indicators may not represent most important issues
Useful in strategic planning and prioritising Operational eco-efficiency and compliance focus
Environmental Workbook and Report Collects baseline data and best practices Difficult to aggregate and compare data
Motivations are largely ignored
Comprehensive, action orientation incorporating processes Calculations and comparisons difficult
Greening Campuses Explicitly and deeply addresses sustainability Focus on Canadian community colleges
User friendly manual with case studies, recommendations Resources out-of-date
Cross-functional, practical “guide” and framework Environmentally focused (i.e., not sustainability)
Campus Ecology
Baseline for current tools No “state-of-the-art”
Process-oriented Operational eco-efficiency focus
Environmental performance survey
Compatible with environmental management systems Neglects sustainability and cross-functional initiatives
Quick, prioritized environmental “snapshot” Operational, eco-efficiency focus
Indicators Snapshot/Guide
Opportunity for more depth on issues of concern Little reference to processes, motivations, benchmarking and sustainability
Table 1. Cont.
Assessment Tool Major Strengths Major Weaknesses

Model for data collection and reporting Not sustainability specific
Grey Pinstripes with Green Ties
Links programs and reputations Neglects decision-making processes and operations
EMS Self-assessment Rapid self-assessment focused of processes Meaningless indicators for most campus settings
Comprehensive Very difficult to calculate
UNI-Metrics
Related to shared view on local issues Too many new indicators sometimes impossible to retrieve
Continuously improved through users’ feedbacks The use of generic quantitative indicators doesn’t underpin local dimensions
Green Metric
Large diffusion Lack of the social dimension
Emphasis on environmental policy UK related
People & Planet’s
Bottom-up approach (developed and monitored
The questionnaire changes every year, making difficult to make comparison
by students)
The report does not assure the agreed ISCN/GULF Sustainable Campus
International Sustainable Campus Network Joined by the top-tip university
Charter will be put in practice
(ISCN)
Provides a global forum to support sustainability
in the University
Each institution is treated the same—although can say that some sub-cat do
Answers verified by AASHE Staff
STARS by AASHE (Association for the not apply
Advancement of Sustainability in
Evaluation based on answers/results and current situation. US based
Higher Education)
Credits weighted by impact not difficult to apply Each category has the same worth but subcategories are weighed.
Prioritizes performance over strategy
Global rankings like the Green Metric have a number of positive features, like openness and
accessibility, and the contribution to academic discourse on sustainability in education and the greening
of campuses. On the other hand, sometimes, the generality of these criteria cannot simply underpin the
local dimensions and local constraints, which sometimes penalise the university for weaknesses outside
its realm of responsibility. Voluntary reporting initiatives like the ISCN report are a good start for
collecting data inside the athenaeum, but then there is no common ground to compare one university
sustainability performance with others, since there are no common frameworks (neither qualitative nor
quantitative). Still, despite historical, social, urban and political differences and similarities, leaders of
Signatories University have accepted the principle that the future belongs to education and science,
and can benefit if the ISCN mutual learning platform to improve their own performance.
As emerging from the table, none of the tools underpin any motivation or commitment behind the
actions, which is indeed a dangerous gap. While the role of change agents and campus communities
and the reasons why sustainability actions are defined are crucial to igniting sustainability processes,
current CSAs seem to be an instrument for “tick-the-box” possible indicators fostering the green
campus image within the sustainability reports.
4. The POLITO-HOKUDAI Comparison

In this section, the POLITO and HOKUDAI case studies are presented. Data collected via
surveys, direct measurements, living-lab downloads, interviews and official document consultations
are shown in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 (and were used to fill out the Green Metric and ISCN CSAs reports
available in Appendix B). Results of evaluations are presented in Section 4.3. The “fit to purpose”
feature of some indicators regarding energy efficiency strategies and appliances is criticised, proposing
alternative ways to underpin the “wise use of energy” criteria. The comparison aims to demonstrate
how focusing the indicators on a local and long-term oriented approach, and grouping universities
according to their “cluster” of similar structure, climatic zone and functions, can overcome many of
the current problems in the dissemination of mutual learning practices and sustainability management
in university campuses.
4.1. The POLITO Campus

The POLITO setting includes five campuses dispersed throughout the city, in buildings dated
from the 17th century (the Castello del Valentino, with an area of 23,000 m2 ) to the late the 1950s (the main
extended complex in Corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 122,000 m2 ), and to 2000 (Cittadella Politecnica, 170,000 m2
of student residences, research activities, technological transfers and services buildings). Far from the
centre, two former industrial sites were also refurbished and used for teaching activities (Mirafiori and
Lingotto, former FIAT manufacturing sites). In total, in 2012, the whole campus accounted for a surface
area of 870,700 m2 , 33,600 users (students and staff), and a yearly primary energy (PE) consumption of
225,475 kWh/m2 . In 2015, POLITO, in collaboration with the Higher Institute on Territorial Systems
for Innovation (SiTI), carried out a project titled “Sustainable Path”, aiming to track down all the
sustainability initiatives of the Politecnico. The first outcome is a report compiled for the International
Sustainable Campus Network (ISCN) that serves as a basis for further strategic plans. In the light of
what emerged in the scouting of the different hidden, but virtuous, sustainability actions in the energy,
waste, mobility, communication and urban management fields, the ISCN report was shown to be
useful in rounding up all the university stakeholders dealing with sustainability issues and eventually
to set a long-term group work, a “green team”, which will be in charge of the overall sustainability
strategy of the Athenaeum. Current internal managers of the aforementioned fields could make up
the core, and be supported by the existing Living Lab. The status quo reported in the ISCN shows
the Politecnico to be in a very good position to move along this path. For instance, 100% of the electric
energy consumed at the campus comes from renewables, and a consistent proportion of the thermal
energy comes from district heating. A new photovoltaics (PV) plant of 400 kWp has recently been
approved, new double-framed windows has substituted all the old ones, and thermal insulation has
been provided for the most dissipative walls of the main building. Car-ride, car-pooling, electric
vehicle charge stations, subsidised public transport seasonal tickets and closed bike parking are some
of the mobility manager’s recent achievements. Zero-kilometer food, green product procurement,
paperless communications, campus differentiated waste collection points, and water dispensers are
Sustainability 2015, 8, 83
other tangible and visible efforts towards building sustainability education, as well as the introduction
of openold ones, and thermal insulation has been provided for the most dissipative walls of the main
night lectures, sustainability-dedicated courses and several international projects on campus
building. Car‐ride, car‐pooling, electric vehicle charge stations, subsidised public transport seasonal
sustainability management.
tickets and closed bike parking are some of the mobility manager’s recent achievements. Zero‐
However, POLITO is one of the many (typical European) cases of a “town-embedded campus”.
kilometer food, green product procurement, paperless communications, campus differentiated waste
Nested collection
within the city and
points, structure, it receives
water dispensers most
are other oftangible
its strengths andefforts
and visible assets, but also
towards most of the
building
sustainability education, as well as the introduction of open night lectures, sustainability‐dedicated
constraints that penalise POLITO in international university green rankings (i.e., lack of green
spaces, courses and several international projects on campus sustainability management.
poor waste management, and no dedicated mobility system, to cite just a few of them) from
However, POLITO is one of the many (typical European) cases of a “town‐embedded campus”.
this structure.
Nested within the city structure, it receives most of its strengths and assets, but also most of the
constraints that penalise POLITO in international university green rankings (i.e., lack of green spaces,
4.2. The HOKUDAI Campus
poor waste management, and no dedicated mobility system, to cite just a few of them) from this
structure.
Hokkaido University was founded in 1876 and is located in the centre of the city of Sapporo
(1.9 million population, 2011 census) on the northern Japanese island of Hokkaido. It encompasses
4.2. The HOKUDAI Campus
31 schools (12 undergraduate and 19 graduate) and at the time of the survey (2012), had over
Hokkaido University was founded in 1876 and is located in the centre of the city of Sapporo (1.9
18,000 students. The campus is situated in downtown Sapporo and covers an area of 1,776,249 m2
million population, 2011 census) on the northern Japanese island of Hokkaido. It encompasses 31
including the entire park in which buildings are located. Hokkaido University follows a series of
schools (12 undergraduate and 19 graduate) and at the time of the survey (2012), had over 18,000
sustainability initiatives in order to reduce its environmental impact. These initiatives
students. The campus is situated in downtown Sapporo and covers an area of 1,776,249 m 2 including could be
categorised in four key groups: sustainable campus core schemes, sustainability programs, human
the entire park in which buildings are located. Hokkaido University follows a series of sustainability
resourceinitiatives in order to reduce its environmental impact. These initiatives could be categorised in four
development and education, leading sustainability networks and campus sustainability
assessment groups:
key schemes. sustainable campus core
The university runsschemes,
periodical sustainability programs,
stakeholder human
meetings resource
in order to bring
development and education, leading sustainability networks and campus sustainability assessment
expertise from outside the university regarding implemented programs and feedback on areas
schemes. The university runs periodical stakeholder meetings in order to bring expertise from
requiring improvement. A series of voluntary student activities to enhance campus sustainability
outside the university regarding implemented programs and feedback on areas requiring
(e.g., “Hokudai GenkiA project”,
improvement. series of “Sustainable Campus
voluntary student Contest”,
activities “Candle
to enhance Night”,
campus “Sustainable
sustainability Campus
(e.g.,
tour”, “Hokkaido University
“Hokudai Genki Campus
project”, VisitCampus
“Sustainable etc.) are“Candle
Project”,Contest”, held byNight”,
different university
“Sustainable departments
Campus
tour”, “Hokkaido University Campus Visit Project”, etc.) are held by different university departments
and groups. Efforts are being made as well to cultivate human resources by fostering a series of
and groups.
sustainability Efforts among
programs are being
themade as well
student to cultivate human resources by fostering a series of
body.
sustainability programs among the student body.
However, as shown in Figure 3, energy consumption per source has been basically steady or even
However, as shown in Figure 3, energy consumption per source has been basically steady or
slightlyeven slightly increasing (for gas and total PE) since 2008.
increasing (for gas and total PE) since 2008.

Figure 3. Energy consumption trends from 2008 to 2011 weighted for energy source at the Hokkaido
Figure 3. Energy consumption trends from 2008 to 2011 weighted for energy source at the
University Campus. Source: author elaboration of data by the Hokkaido University Sustainability
Hokkaido University Campus. Source: author elaboration of data by the Hokkaido University
Office.
Sustainability Office.
9
4.3. ISCN and Green Metric Results: Campus Comparison
4.3. ISCN and Green Metric Results: Campus Comparison
In this section, critical insights on metrics and report results are used in order to compare two
In this section, critical insights on metrics and report results are used in order to compare two
very different campuses. Indeed, HOKUDAI’s 516,509 m2 of university campus area is 40% smaller
very different campuses. Indeed, HOKUDAI’s 516,509 m2 of university campus area is 40% smaller
than that of Turin. Its 16,418 users consume 1,731,798 GJ of PE. To put this into perspective, while PE
than that of Turin. Its 16,418 users consume 1,731,798 GJ of PE. To put this into perspective, while
consumption per capita in Turin is 6.71 GJ, in Sapporo it is 105 GJ (1471% more). The cost of this
PE consumption per capita in Turin is 6.71 GJ, in Sapporo it is 105 GJ (1471% more). The cost of this
(calculate for the year 2014) is 117 € per capita in Turin, versus 2779 € in Sapporo (a difference of
(calculate for the year 2014) is 117 € per capita in Turin, versus 2779 € in Sapporo (a difference of 2275%).
2275%). These data are displayed in Figure 4.
These data are displayed in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Comparison
Figure 4. Comparison of HOKUDAI vs.
of HOKUDAI vs. POLITO
POLITO for total university users,
for total university users, surface,
surface, yearly
yearly costs
costs of
of
primary energy consumption (PE), and PE per capita and square meters. Source: author’s elaboration
primary energy consumption (PE), and PE per capita and square meters. Source: author’s elaboration
from data collection at Hokkaido University Sustainability Office and Politecnico di Torino’s Living Lab.
from data collection at Hokkaido University Sustainability Office and Politecnico di Torino’s Living
Lab.
Back to CSAs, the ISCN annual report only outlines the gold standard practices and celebrates the
Back to CSAs, the ISCN annual report only outlines the gold standard practices and celebrates
diversity of responses to challenges of campus sustainability according to each campus’s peculiarities.
the diversity
The aim is to pool of responses to challenges
global knowledge on howof campus sustainability
universities can best supportaccording to each
sustainable campus’s
development
peculiarities. The aim is to pool global knowledge on how universities can best support sustainable
through their research and education, and putting principles into practice in their own operations,
development through their research and education, and putting principles into practice in their own
showcasing their achievements. However, this can result in a too auto-referential and limited vision of
operations,
the showcasing
actual situation of thetheir achievements.
campuses. However,
Neither POLITO northis can result
HOKUDAI in a too any
displayed auto‐referential
negative dataand
or
limited vision of the actual situation of the campuses. Neither POLITO nor HOKUDAI displayed any
ways to overcome real problems for sustainability implementation.
negative data or ways to overcome real problems for sustainability implementation.
Figure 5 stresses the Green Metric scores for POLITO and HOKUDAI in 2014, with the differences
Figure 5 stresses
(in percentage) the points
on the total Green acquired
Metric scores
for eachfor POLITO
category of and HOKUDAI
criteria. According in to2014,
thesewith the
metrics,
differences
the position (in percentage)
of HOKUDAI ison the total
higher than points acquired
POLITO’s for each category
by 71 positions. However, of ifcriteria. According to
energy consumption
these metrics, the position of HOKUDAI is higher than POLITO’s by 71 positions. However, if energy
per capita and per square meter (Figure 4) is taken into account, metrics would have suggested totally
consumption per capita and per square meter (Figure 4) is taken into account, metrics would have
different rankings and results. Of course, energy consumption is not, as it should not be, the only
suggested totally different rankings and results. Of course, energy consumption is not, as it should
and main criteria, but it is still the main output of a good sustainability performance (in terms of
not be, the only and main criteria, but it is still the main output of a good sustainability performance
emissions reduction and minimum wastage of resources). While having more than 10 times less
(in terms of emissions reduction and minimum wastage of resources). While having more than 10
energy consumption, POLITO is penalised for being located within a city that does not allow, due to
times less energy consumption, POLITO is penalised for being located within a city that does not
physical and legal framework constraints, more green spaces (owned by the university), a special
allow, due to physical and legal framework constraints, more green spaces (owned by the university),
waste treatment system, or a dedicated transportation system.
a special waste treatment system, or a dedicated transportation system.
10
5000
total score
setting and infrastructure
3750 energy and climate change
waste
water
2500 transportation
education
1250
0
POLITO HOKUDAI

(a)
∆ HOKUDAI vs POLITO
total score
setting and infrastructure
energy and climate change
waste
water
transportation
education
‐80% ‐40% 0% 40% 80% 120% 160%

(b)
Figure 5.
Figure 5. Green
GreenMetric
Metricscores
scoresfor
forPOLITO
POLITOand HOKUDAI
and HOKUDAI in in
2014
2014(a), (a),
with the the
with differences (in
differences
percentage) on the total points acquired for each category of criteria (b). Source: author elaboration of
(in percentage) on the total points acquired for each category of criteria (b). Source: author elaboration
data from the Green Metric website.
of data from the Green Metric website.
5. Discussion: toward a “Cluster Approach”, beyond EE Indicators
5. Discussion: toward a “Cluster Approach”, beyond EE Indicators
From the above illustrated comparison it can be observed that both types of frameworks (Green
From the above illustrated comparison it can be observed that both types of frameworks (Green
Metric and
Metric and ISCN)ISCN) present
present limits
limits related
related to: action-based
to: (i) (i) action‐based approaches,
approaches, which which are quantitative,
are quantitative, precise,
precise, but not very flexible, in the case of Green Metric; and (ii) ISCN is definitely open, and within
but not very flexible, in the case of Green Metric; and (ii) ISCN is definitely open, and within its
its objective‐based approach suggests actions and indicators, but these are not mandatory, not forcing
objective-based approach suggests actions and indicators, but these are not mandatory, not forcing
institutions to apply certain “minimum” standards. In order to overcome those gaps, this research
institutions to apply certain “minimum” standards. In order to overcome those gaps, this research
paper proposes
paper proposes aa twofold
twofold approach:
approach: (i)
(i) from
from one side it
one side it introduces
introduces the
the need
need to
to cluster
cluster university
university
campuses according to homogeneous features (allowing meaningful comparisons) and (ii) it frames
campuses according to homogeneous features (allowing meaningful comparisons) and (ii) it frames a
a set
set of indicators
of indicators enabling
enabling the underpinning
the underpinning of broad, of integrated
broad, integrated
and long and
termlong term sustainability
sustainability transitions
transitions beyond improving energy efficiency only. Three clusters are
beyond improving energy efficiency only. Three clusters are therefore proposed in therefore proposed in the
the following
following Subsections 5.1–5.3 (respectively related to urban morphology, climatic zone and hosted
Subsection 5.1, Subsection 5.2 and Subsection 5.3 (respectively related to urban morphology, climatic
functions) while a set of indicators are suggested in Subsection 5.4.
zone and hosted functions) while a set of indicators are suggested in Subsection 5.4.
5.1. Cluster 1: Urban Morphology (Delimited Units or Town‐Scattered)
5.1. Cluster 1: Urban Morphology (Delimited Units or Town-Scattered)
As mentioned in the results section, notwithstanding POLITO is more than 10 times less energy
As mentioned in the results section, notwithstanding POLITO is more than 10 times less energy
consuming than HOKUDAI, it is penalised in green metrics for its low performances in terms of green
consuming than HOKUDAI, it is penalised in green metrics for its low performances in terms of green
spaces, special waste treatments or dedicated transportation systems. Because it is dispersed within
spaces, special waste treatments or dedicated transportation systems. Because it is dispersed within
a city, those indicators are simply nonsense, due to the physical and legal frameworks constraints
a city, those indicators are simply nonsense, due to the physical and legal frameworks constraints
(POLITO indeed is using city centre green spaces and cannot own them, or build more because of the
prohibitive costs of building new green spaces within a dense historical Italian city centre, and the
11
(POLITO indeed is using city centre green spaces and cannot own them, or build more because of the
prohibitive costs of building new green spaces within a dense historical Italian city centre, and the
same justifications can be used for waste treatment or mobility). Indeed, indicators in the “Setting and
Infrastructure” criteria, asking for instance the “1.9—Area on campus covered in vegetation in the
form of forest”, or “1.10—Percentage of area on campus covered in planted vegetation (include lawns,
gardens, green roofs, internal planting)” or “1.11—Non-retentive surfaces on campus as percentage
of total area for water absorption” (Green Metrics reports, Appendix B) account for 15% of the total
score, penalising POLITO for issues not relating to its own failing, but to constraints embedded in all
the campuses nested within city centres. Therefore, in order to make sense of university comparisons
within green rankings, two (at least) macro categories are proposed: (i) universities that could be
considered as “urban units” themselves, outside the city centre, defined as the college typology by
Le Corbusier (“College? Americans constantly say: ‘At college...’ It reflects the presence in their
hearts of a great and fine period—the fine period in their lives.... Colleges and universities, then,
have a very particular character. Everything in the interest of comfort, everything for the sake of
calm and serenity, everything to make solid bodies. Each college or university is an urban unit in
itself, a small or large city. But it is a green city. Lawns, parks, stadiums, cloisters, dining halls,
a whole complex of comfortable quarters. Often the style is Gothic-that’s the way it is! -rich, luxurious,
well made....The American university is a world in itself, a temporary paradise, a gracious stage of
life.” [32] (p. 135)) (HOKUDAI campus best fits this category) and (ii) a scattered group of buildings
and infrastructure nested within the town (like POLITO). Most notably, the two typologies allow
consistent comparison when dealing with indicators of setting and infrastructure, transportation and
waste management criteria. A comparison with a third campus like the Polytechnic of Milan, could be
the test for such clusters, since it fits with the POLITO morphology type and bypasses all the problems
related to the lack of a defined border of university properties. Indeed, the indicators “5.2a—Number
of cars entering the university daily”, “5.2b—Number of motorcycles entering the university daily”
or “5.6—Campus bus service” as found in the Transportation category (see Green Metric Reports in
Appendix B), presume the existence of a urban unit and its border to allow suitable measurements,
while the embedded campus would ask for dedicated types of indicators to underpin users’ adoption
of sustainable transport systems.
5.2. Cluster 2: Climate Zone

As shown in Figure 6, comparing the two cities hosting the universities in question, over the
previous three years, the average outside air temperatures were 9.4 ˝ C for Sapporo and 14.7 ˝ C for
Turin. The annual range for Sapporo was wider than for Turin. The average global solar radiation was
3377 Wh/m2 /day and 1234 kWh/m2 /year for Sapporo and 3473 Wh/m2 /day and 1271 kWh/m2 /year
for Turin. Looking only at July and August, the solar radiation for Turin tended to be much higher
than in Sapporo, while the pattern over the months seems to follow the same curve. A cluster related
to different climate zones appears essential as far as building energy performances evaluation is
always related to relative regional weather patterns [33,34] or even, more recently, to the relative urban
climate [35].

Figure 6. Comparison between Torino and Sapporo weather data from for 2010, 2011, 2012. Source:
Ecotect archives.
Ecotect archives.
Ecotect archives.
5.3. Cluster 3: University Functions
The need for this third cluster comes directly from the observation of outliers in the consumption
profiles of different buildings within the HOKUDAI campus. It represented a perfect case to study
this cluster, since, differently from POLITO, each department occupies a single building, allowing to
accurately measure consumption thresholds and patterns. Indeed, from the chart in Figure 7, it
accurately measure
accurately measure consumption
consumption thresholds andand
thresholds patterns. Indeed,
patterns. fromfrom
Indeed, the chart
the in Figure
chart in 7, it appears
Figure 7, it
appears clear the differences in the electricity consumption of a humanities department (bar No.1),
clear the differences in the electricity consumption of a humanities department (bar No.1), engineering
appears clear the differences in the electricity consumption of a humanities department (bar No.1),
engineering department (No.9), hospital (No.30) or library (No.38).
department (No.9), hospital (No.30) or library (No.38).
engineering department (No.9), hospital (No.30) or library (No.38).

Figure 7. Annual electricity consumption breakdown for different departments (The comprehensive
list of department and their associated number is shown in Appendix D) in HOKUDAI during 2012.
Source: [36].
Source: [36].
Source: [36].
Further research on the typologies of functions that display homogeneous ranges of energy
Further
Further research
research on the typologies
oncarried
the typologies of
of functions
functions that
that display
display homogeneous
homogeneous ranges
ranges of energy
consumption has to be out. In HOKUDAI, in 2012, electricity consumption for of
all energy
the 38
consumption
consumption has to
has to be carried
be MWh/year out. In HOKUDAI,
carried out.on Inaverage;
HOKUDAI, in 2012,
in 2012,electricity consumption
electricity consumptionfor all the the
38
departments was 2983 the top five “energivorous” buildings for all
were the
departments
38 departments was 2983
was 2983 MWh/year
MWh/year on average;
on average; the top five “energivorous” buildings were the
University Hospital, and the Engineering, Science, the top fiveand
Medicine, “energivorous” buildings were
Agriculture departments. the
From
University Hospital, and the Engineering, Science, Medicine, and Agriculture departments. From
2008 to 2012, these departments accounted for 60% of the total campus electricity energy
2008 to 2012, these departments accounted for 60% of the total campus electricity energy
consumption.
consumption.
13
13
University Hospital, and the Engineering, Science, Medicine, and Agriculture departments. From 2008
to 2012, these departments accounted for 60% of the total campus electricity energy consumption.
Clusters accounting for these differences may allow a fair comparison among campuses having
similar functions, and may help in setting average thresholds of energy consumption for each
department. In the case of peaks due to experiments on behalf of third parties (i.e., when universities
are commissioned by industry to do some test requiring intensive energy consumption, like resistances
trials on new materials), it can be suggested that each department pay for extra energy consumption.
“Nominal” energy bills could also allow a fairer distribution of economic resources among departments
and less energy wastage.
5.4. Beyond Current Energy Efficiency Indicators

The distance between quantitative (Green Metric ranking) and qualitative (ISCN reports) campus
assessments is unavoidable. As already mentioned from the beginning of the paper, if from one side,
ISCN reports do not guarantee commitments in setting targets, from the other side the final list, and
ranking, of specific indicators from the Green Metric could result in a black box of actual problems,
being not necessarily linked to a virtuous sustainability strategy and, therefore, allowing for some kind
of market (green branding) oriented green washing practice. This section presents some perspectives
on how the willingness to set targets and indicators and overcoming the limits of voluntary qualitative
sustainability reports could be framed, but with a broad view of sustainability, beyond eco-efficiency.
Eco-efficiency has become perhaps the most popular concept and tool in corporate environmental and
sustainability management, and also the most criticized [37]. Just ticking off the presence/absence of
energy efficient appliances (indicator “2.1a”), or an Energy Conservation Program (indicator “2.4”) or
a Smart Building program (indicator “2.1b”), does not guard us against prebound/rebound effects [38],
and incorrect maintenance of appliances [39], or account for occupant behavioural patterns in the
actual use of energy [40]. However, taking into consideration the importance of energy-related issues
in the totality of the analysed CSAs (in Table 2, the frequency of adopted macro-criteria across the
five most used CSAs), it seems crucial to find more appropriate indicators that bring us closer to the
reality of energy use.
Table 2. The frequency of indicators related to physical elements in five CSAs frameworks. Squared in
red, the indicators retrieved in all of the five CSAs. Source: author elaboration from [41].
College
Evaluation UI Green
Area Indicator STARS Uni-Metrics Sustainability
Category GreenMetric League
Report Card
Greenhouse Gas
Air and
Emission * * * * *
Climate
Reduction
Design and
* * * * *
Construction
Physical Operation and

* * *
Elements Maintenance
Buildings
Campus Density *
Architecture
*
Quality
Building Energy
* * * * *
Consumption
Energy
Renewable
* * * * *
Energy Usage
Table 2. Cont.
College
Evaluation UI Green
Area Indicator STARS Uni-Metrics Sustainability
Category GreenMetric League
Report Card
Green Areas
* *
Preservation
Biodiversity *
Preserved
Soil and *
Existing Areas
ecosystem
Connected Green
*
Areas
Community’s
*
Memories
Open Space Areas * *
Physical
Commute Modal
Elements * * * * *
Split
Bicycle Program * * * * *
Transportation
Accessibility to
the Public * * *
Transport
Waste
Waste Minimization, * * * * *
Recycling
Water
Water * * * * *
Conservation
Food & Organic, local
* * *
Recycling food
From looking at the most pressing elements to fixing prebound/rebound effects, such as incorrect
maintenance of appliances, or occupant behavioural patterns, it seems more effort needs to be
directed towards checking and testing the occupant satisfaction of universities and behavioural
patterns in relation to sustainability. The tailoring of user behaviours can be in turn evaluated by
ex-ante and ex-post evaluations of proposed actions, crossing-checking data with that from similar
institutions and public buildings of similar cultures. Setting “personal” and room-based thresholds
for thermo-hygrometric comfort according to the actual building occupants would serve also to point
out other factors influencing occupants having a higher level of tolerance to discomfort; for instance,
those related to having a higher degree of personal control over indoor temperature, being located in
a historical building, or to be socially awarded among colleagues for virtuous energy use. For instance,
a higher acceptance of discomfort means that users are more willing to collaborate with the University
on energy reduction initiatives and to wear extra layers when the temperature drops below 20 ˝ C.
Further research on the social aspects of energy use may also involve cross-checking these cultural
and attitudinal profiles with smart sensor and smart meter data charts, in order to tune the institutional
strategies according to the changing (daily and yearly) population of this complex portion of the city.
6. Conclusions
The paper reviews the most common and international Campus Sustainability Assessments
(CSAs), outlining their limits in (i) not providing mechanisms for comparison (nationally and
internationally); (ii) emphasising mainly Eco-Efficiency (EE) borne indicators, over a range of long-term
social and built-environment sustainability measures; and, finally, (iii) because some of them are too
narrow and qualitative without normative targets.
The case of Politecnico di Torino POLITO, Italy, has been used to analyse its sustainability
performance according to the “Green Metric” and “ISCN report” (two of the most adopted and
diffused CSAs), and are then compared with the performance of Hokkaido University HOKUDAI,
Japan. Results emphasize the gaps among virtuous sustainability actions (in the case of POLITO)
and the Green Metric rankings. Therefore, on the bases of the analyses and results of both cases, and
accounting for their structural and functional differences (POLITO is campus sprawled through the city
centre, while HOKUDAI is a campus outside the city), a new CSA approach is suggested, proposing
“clusters of different university typologies”. In order to build a meaningful comparison among different
cases, the cluster approach introduces the need to consider and classify cases according to the following
macro-features: (i) spatial structure (scattered throughout the city or compact campuses outside the
city); (ii) climatic zone and (iii) hosted functions for each case. At the micro-scale, the need for revising
and substituting current eco-efficiency-driven indicators with more life cycle and user-centric related
metrics is also proposed, with some examples regarding the energy issue. The adoption of annual
user satisfaction surveys can offer great opportunities to track the post-occupancy effect of strategies
for energy reduction, to profile the levers and the cultural attitudes of the university community,
and to tailor internal temperature thresholds according to single margins of acceptance. Such a new
approach—attentive to local constraints and long-term tracking of outcomes rather than an absolute
record of taken actions—can help build homogenous university case studies, framed accordingly
within clusters, to find similar and scalable successful practices, and also in self-monitoring progress
toward achieving a truly sustainable university campus.
Acknowledgments: This research was supported by a Marie Curie International Research Staff Exchange Scheme
Fellowship within the 7th European Community Framework Program, Marie Curie IRSES Grant Agreement
Number: PIRSES-GA-2010-269161, named “UNI-Metrics/Value Metrics and Policies for Sustainable University
Campus”. More info on the website: http://www.uni-metrics.polito.it/.
Author Contributions: The superintendence of Lombardi let the data collection run smoothly along the
two institutions. The bold revision process that gave the article the present structure, introduction and conclusion
was put in place by Chelleri. Sonetti was in charge of the chapters’ contents.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
POLITO Politecnico di Torino

HOKUDAI Hokkaido University
CSA Campus Sustainability Assessment
EE Eco Efficiency
ISCN International Sustainable Campus Network
PE Primary Energy
Appendix A
The ISCN criteria and three principles held by POLITO.
The Politecnico di Torino has opted to divide the activities it carried out in the field of sustainability
into five dimensions which highlight the most specific points of interest and which represent it in the
most appropriate light possible.
‚ Energy and Buildings: towards energy efficiency
This dimension highlights POLITO’s focus on the reuse of sections of the city and pre-existing
buildings, in continuing restoration and modernization for sustainability, and economic and
energy efficiency.
‚ Urban Outreach: towards integration in the city

This dimension was conceived to represent the sustainability of POLITO, in view of the urban/
metropolitan range of action (urban outreach), subtending a mature awareness of the need to offer
a widespread and multi-polar system of services, which are highly interconnected, and permeable
with the local resources (public and private companies and institutions at various levels).
‚ Mobility and Metropolitan Area: towards a widespread and multi-polar campus
This dimension instead represents the relationship and the connection that the university builds
with the outside; but above all, it represents the viewpoint of mobility and the transfers that the staff
and users (of whom there are many) undertake every day, making the POLITO a centre of activity for
the city of Turin.
‚ People and Food: towards better quality of life
This dimension represents the POLITO focus on the wellness of those who live there daily
(administrative technicians, teaching staff, students) supporting all activities undertaken in terms of
security and quality of life, paying particular attention to food, education and research.
‚ Purchasing and Waste: towards complete closure of products’ lifecycles
Finally, the last dimension aims to highlight all the sustainable activities connected to the products’
lifecycle theme, from purchase to disposal, trying to spread the recycle-reuse-decrease culture, which
should be the fundamental approach.
These five dimensions are then crossed to three ISCN principles as described in Table A1.
Namely, the three basic principles of the ISCN network are:
(1) Principle 1: Buildings and their sustainability impact. To show respect for nature and society,
sustainability considerations should be an integral part in the planning, construction, renovation,
and operation of buildings on campus.
(2) Principle 2: Campus wide planning and target setting. To ensure long-term sustainable campus
development, campus-wide master planning and target setting should include environmental
and social goals.
(3) Principle 3: The integration of research, teaching, facilities and outreach. To align the
organization’s core mission with sustainable development, facilities, research, and education
should be linked to create a “living laboratory” for sustainability.
Table A1. The five dimensions (in bold) crossed to three ISCN principles (in italic) as described in the
POLITO ISCN report.
Energy and Purchasing Urban Mobility and

ISCN Charter People and Food
Building and Waste Outreach Metropolitan area
Resource Use
Principle 1 Waste,
Building
recycling, local
Design Aspects
emission
Institution-wide Master
Transportation Food
carbon targets Planning
Principle 2
Social Protection
and Safety
Social Integration
Principle 3 Commitments and resources dedicated to campus sustainability
Integrated
Communication
Appendix B
Table A2. The Green Metric 2014 report for HOKUDAI and POLITO.
No. UI Green Metric World University Ranking HOKUDAI POLITO

1 Setting and Infrastructure score score
Campus Setting
1.1 2 3
_ [1]rural [2]Suburban [3]Urban [4]Other
Number of campus sites
1.2 2 9
_ Provide number
Total campus area (meter square)
1.3 1,866,400 267,586
_ Provide number
Total Floor area of building (meter square)
1.4 733,934 116,372
_ Provide number
Electricity usage per year (for lighting, heating, cooling, etc.)
1.5 (Total KWH) 114,762,489 16,685,358
_ Provide number
Number of vehicles owned by your institution (buses and cars)
1.6 83 26
_ Provide number
Number of cars entering the university daily (average based on
1.7 balanced sample, e.g. considering term and holiday periods) 3720 800
_ Provide number
Number of bicycles that are found on campus on an average
day(include both those owned by the university and privately
1.8 5216 1000
owned bikes)
_ Provide number
Number of students (include both part-time and full time
1.9 students) 18,165 33,356
_ Provide number
Number of academic and administrative staff
1.10 4266 1629
_ Provide number
Number of courses related to environment and sustainability
1.11 offered 569 90
_ Provide number
Total number of course offered
1.12 10,548 1926
_ Provide number
Number of study programs related to environment and
1.13 13
sustainability offered
1.14 Total number of study programs offered 1177
Total research funds dedicated to environmental and
1.15 sustainability research (in US dollars, 6,527,578.71
average per annum over the last 3 years)
Number of scholarly publications on environment and
1.16 sustainability published (average number published annually 318
over the last 3 years)
Number of scholarly events related to environment and
1.17 sustainability (conferences etc.)(average per annum 65 21
over the last 3 years)
Number of student organizations related to environment
1.18 8 5
and sustainability
Policy to reduce the use of paper and plastic in campus
1.19 3 2
_ [1]No policy [2]Policy preparation [3]Policy implemented
Policy for a smoke-free and drug-free campus environment
1.20 3 3
Existence of a university-run sustainability website
1.21 3 3
_ [1]Not available [2]in progress [3]Available
Table A2. Cont.

2 Energy and Climate Change
Energy efficient appliances usage (extent to which energy efficient
appliances/lighting fixtures, e.g. low watt light bulbs,
2.1 are replacing conventional appliances) 2 3
_ [1]conventional [2]Partly replaced [3]Fully employed
[4]Smart building
Renewable energy usage policy (select one or more of the given
energy sources used on your campus)
2.2 3, 4 5
_ [1]None [2]Bio diesel [3]Clean biomass [4]Solar power
[5]Geothermal [6]Wind power
Energy conservation program (formalized effort in encouraging
2.3 members of the campus community to reduce energy use) 2 4
Green building (elements of green building implementation as
reflected in all construction and renovation policy)(select one or
2.4 more that apply) 3, 4 2
_ [1]None [2]Natural ventilation [3]Full Daylighting [4]Building
effiency: less than 35% for circulation
Climate change adaptation and mitigation program (current stage
2.5 of institutional effort) 3 3
_ [1]No program [2]Policy preparation [3]Policy implemented
Greenhouse gas emission reductions policy
2.6 3 5
_ [1]No program [2]Policy preparation [3]Policy implemented
Area on campus covered in vegetation in the form of forest
2.7 (provide as %age of total site area) 16 0
_ %age
Area on campus covered in planted vegetation (include lawns,
gardens, green roofs, internal planting)(provide as %age of total
2.8 44 18
site area)
_ %age
3 Waste
Recycling program for university waste (policy led effort to
3.1 encourage staff and students to recycle waste) 2 3
_[1]None [2]Partial [3]Extensive
Toxic waste recycling (whether toxic waste is dealt with
3.2 separately, for example by classifying and recycling it) 3 1
_[1]Not treated [2]Partly treated in some places [3]Fully treated
Organic waste treatment (garbage, discarded vegetable and plant
matter ) (select the option that best describes your overall
3.3 treatment of the bulk of your organic waste) 3 1
_[1]Taken off campus to dump site [2]Dumped in open
[3]Composted [4]Recycled
Inorganic waste treatment (rubbish, trash, discarded paper,
plastic, metal, etc)(select the option that best describes your
3.4 overall treatment of the bulk of your inorganic waste) 4 2
_[1]Burned in open [2]Taken off campus to a dump site
[3]Partially reused [4]Fully recycled
Sewerage disposal (primary method of treatment of sewerage)
(select the option that best describes how the bulk of your
3.5 sewerage is disposed of) 3 1
_[1]Flows into river or waterway [2]Piped to septic tank
[3]Treated before disposal [4]Treated for reuse
Table A2. Cont.

4 Water
Water conservation program (systematic, formalized program)
4.1 _ [1]No program [2]Program preparation 3 3
[3]Program implemented
Retention: non-retentive surfaces on campus as percentage of
total area (where non-retentive surfaces incl. earth, grass,
4.2 40 20
con-block etc, and retentive surfaces incl. concrete, tarmac)
_ %age
Piped water (water consumed from utility or piped system as
a percentage of all sources of water including,
4.3 9 0
e.g., ground or well water)
_ %age
5 Transportation
Transportation policy designed to limit the number of motor
vehicles used on campus (expressed as stage of implementation of
5.1 3 3
that policy)
_ [1]None [2]In preparation [3]Fully implemented
Campus buses (the availability of buses for journeys within the
campus whether free or paid)
5.2 3 1
_ [1]Not available [2]Available (paying service) [3]Available
(free service)
Bicycle and pedestrian policy on campus (reflects the extent to
which bicycle use or walking is supported) (select one or more
options that apply to your campus)
5.3 4, 5 5
_ [1] Bicycle use not possible or practical [2]No policy but use not
discouraged [3]Bicycles provided by university [4]Bicycle way
[5]Pedestrian way
Appendix C
List of interviewed stakeholders:
‚ Key stakeholders in the sustainability management at POLITO:
(1) Prof. R. Borchiellini (Vice Rector, Facility Manager)

(2) Prof. B. Dalla Chiara (Mobility Manager)
(3) Prof. D. Fino (Waste Manager)
(4) Prof. G.V. Fracastoro (Energy Manager)
(5) Prof. P. Lombardi
(6) Prof. P. Tamborrini
(7) Prof. S. Corgnati
(8) Prof. M. Bottero
‚ Interviewed in the POLITO sub-groups managers:
(1) Living LAB—Gianni Carioni, manager

(2) EDILOG Office—Construction and Logistics Area, Valeria Giovanardi, Manager
(3) IT Office—Information Technology Area, Piero Bozza, Manager
(4) AQUI Office—Goods and Services Provision Area
(5) GESD Office—Teaching Direction Area
(6) CORE Office—Communication, Events and Public Relations Services
(7) SiTI—Higher Institute on Territorial Systems for Innovation, Valentina Ferretti, Marco
Valle, Stefano Fraire, Luisa Ingaramo, Stefania Sabatino, Francesca Bodano, researchers
‚ Key stakeholders in the sustainability management at HOKUDAI:
(1) Prof. Masahiko Fuji, Associate professor at the Graduate School of Environmental Science,
Member of the Sustainable Low-Carbon Society Project 2010
(2) Prof. Takao Ozasa, Associate Professor, Laboratory of Urban Design, Division of
Architectural Design, Faculty of Engineering, Director of the Office for Sustainable Campus
(3) Dr. Maki Komatsu, Coordinator, Office for a Sustainable Campus
(4) Mr. Tomohiro Morimoto, Unit chief, Facilities Department, Sustainable Campus Promotion
Division, Office for Sustainable Campus
(5) Mr. Takashi Yokoyama, Project Manager, Office for a Sustainable Campus
(6) Prof. Takeo Ozawa, Faculty of Engineering, Architectural and Structural Design, Human
Settlement Design
Students of attending the Candle Night 2013 event, members of Art Challenge “Takikawa” and
the Environmental Promotion Section, master students at the Public Policy School, and international
students at the Graduate School of Environmental Science.
Appendix D
Table A3. The HOKUDAI buildings analysed for their electricity consumption.
No. Department (38)

1 Letters
2 Education
3 Law
4 Slavic Research Center
5 Economics and Business Administration
6 Institute for the Advancement of Higher Education
7 Media and Communication
8 Science
9 Engineering
10 Agriculture
11 Environmental Earth Science
12 Medicine
13 Dental Medicine
14 Pharmaceutical Sciences and Pharmacy
15 Veterinary Medicine
16 Health Sciences
17 Central Institute of Isotope Science
18 Field Science Center for Northern Biosphere
19 Research Center for Integrated Quantum Electronics
20 Meme Media Laboratory
21 Center for Advanced Research of Energy and Materials
22 Creative Research Institution (Northern campus No.3)
23 Frontier Research Center for Post-genome Science and Technology (Northern campus No.2)
24 Research Center for Zoonosis Control (Northern Campus No.4)
25 Research Institute for Electronic Science (Northern Campus No.5)
26 Institute of Low Temperature Science
27 Research Institute for Electronic Science (Central Campus)
28 Creative Research Institution (Catalysis Research Center etc.)
29 Center for Promotion of Platform for Research on Biofunctional Molecules (Northern Campus No.6)
30 University Hospital
31 University Hospital (Center for Dental Clinics)
32 Information Initiative Center (South)
33 Information Initiative Center (North)
34 Bureau
35 Academic Affairs
36 Clark Memorial Student Center
37 Sports Training Center
38 Library
References
1. Wright, T. University presidents’ conceptualizations of sustainability in higher education. Int. J. Sustain.
High. Educ. 2010, 11, 61–73. [CrossRef]
2. Seitzinger, S.P.; Svedin, U.; Crumley, C.L.; Steffen, W.; Abdullah, S.A.; Alfsen, C.; Broadgate, W.J.; Biermann, F.;
Bondre, N.R.; Dearing, J.A. Planetary stewardship in an urbanizing world: Beyond city limits. Ambio 2012,
41, 787–794. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Tukker, A.; Emmert, S.; Charter, M.; Vezzoli, C.; Sto, E.; Andersen, M.M.; Geerken, T.; Tischner, U.; Lahlou, S.
Fostering change to sustainable consumption and production: An evidence based view. J. Clean. Prod. 2008,
16, 1218–1225. [CrossRef]
4. Jackson, T. Prosperity without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet, 2nd ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA,
2011.
5. Hordijk, I. Position paper on sustainable universities. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 14, 810–819.
6. Cole, L. Assessing Sustainability on Canadian University Campuses: Development of a Campus
Sustainability Assessment Framework. Master’s Thesis, Royal Roads University, Sooke, Victoria, BC,
California, 2003.
7. Green, T.L. Teaching (un)sustainability? University sustainability commitments and student experiences of
introductory economics. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 94, 135–142. [CrossRef]
8. Zsóka, Á.; Szerényi, Z.M.; Széchy, A.; Kocsis, T. Greening due to environmental education? Environmental
knowledge, attitudes, consumer behavior and everyday pro-environmental activities of Hungarian high
school and university students. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 48, 126–138. [CrossRef]
9. Lozano, R. Diffusion of sustainable development in universities’ curricula: An empirical example from
Cardiff University. J. Clean. Prod. 2010, 18, 637–644. [CrossRef]
10. Alshuwaikhat, H.M.; Abubakar, I. An integrated approach to achieving campus sustainability: Assessment
of the current campus environmental management practices. J. Clean. Prod. 2008, 16, 1777–1785. [CrossRef]
11. The Buildings Performance Institute Europe (BPIE). Breakdown of the Building Stock by Building Type.
2011. Available online: http://www.buildingsdata.eu/data-search/results (accessed on 22 November 2015).
12. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). A Bench-Marking Method for
Facility Management. Available online: Http://www.mext.go.jp/component/b_menu/shingi/toushin/
__icsFiles/afieldfile/2010/08/23/1296613_1.pdf (accessed on 11 January 2016). (In Japanese).
13. Li, X.; Tan, H.; Rackes, A. Carbon footprint analysis of student behavior for a sustainable university campus
in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 106, 97–108. [CrossRef]
14. Trencher, G.P.; Yarime, M.; Kharrazi, A. Co-creating sustainability: Cross-sector university collaborations for
driving sustainable urban transformations. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 50, 40–55. [CrossRef]
15. Eagan, D.J.; Orr, D.W. Campus and Environmental Responsibility; Jossey-Bass: Hoboken, New Jersey, NJ,
USA, 1992.
16. Leal Filho, W. Sustainability and university life. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2000. [CrossRef]
17. McIntosh, M.; Cacciola, K.; Clermont, S.; Keniry, J. State of the campus environment: A National
Report Card on Environmental Performance and Sustainability in Higher Education. Available online:
https://www.nwf.org/Campus-Ecology/Resources/Reports/State-of-the-Campus-Environment-Report/
Read-the-State-of-the-Campus-Environment-Report.aspx. (accessed on 4 January 2016).
18. Del Alonso-Almeida, M.M.; Marimon, F.; Casani, F.; Rodriguez-Pomeda, J. Diffusion of sustainability
reporting in universities: Current situation and future perspectives. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 106, 144–154.
[CrossRef]
19. Shriberg, M. Institutional assessment tools for sustainability in higher education: Strengths, weaknesses,
and implications for practice and theory. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2002, 3, 254–270. [CrossRef]
20. Rauch, J.N.; Newman, J. Defining sustainability metric targets in an institutional setting. Int. J. Sustain.
High. Educ. 2009, 10, 107–117. [CrossRef]
21. Derrick, S. Time and Sustainability Metrics in Higher Education. In Sustainability Assessment Tools in Higher
Education Institutions; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2013; pp. 47–63.
22. Caeiro, S.; Leal Filho, W.; Jabbour, C.; Azeiteiro, U.M. Sustainability Assessment Tools in Higher Education
Institutions. Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2013.
23. Figge, F.; Hahn, T. Sustainable value added—Measuring corporate contributions to sustainability beyond
eco-efficiency. Ecol. Econ. 2004, 48, 173–187. [CrossRef]
24. Adams, C.A.; Larrinaga-González, C.; Adams, C.A.; McNicholas, P. Making a difference: Sustainability
reporting, accountability and organisational change. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2007, 20, 382–402. [CrossRef]
25. Verhulst, E.; Lambrechts, W. Fostering the incorporation of sustainable development in higher education.
Lessons learned from a change management perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 106, 189–204. [CrossRef]
26. Calder, W.; Clugston, R.M. Progress toward sustainability in higher education. Environ. Law Rep. News Anal.
2003, 33, 10003–10022.
27. Arroyo, P. A new taxonomy for examining the multi-role of campus sustainability assessments in
organizational change. J. Clean. Prod. 2015. in press. [CrossRef]
28. Spira, F.; Tappeser, V.; Meyer, A. Perspectives on Sustainability Governance from Universities in the USA,
UK, and Germany: How do Change Agents Employ Different Tools to Alter Organizational Cultures and
Structures? In Sustainability Assessment Tools in Higher Education Institutions; Springer: Cham, Switzerland,
2013; pp. 175–187.
29. Ceulemans, K.; Molderez, I.; van Liedekerke, L. Sustainability reporting in higher education:
A comprehensive review of the recent literature and paths for further research. J. Clean. Prod. 2015,
106, 127–143. [CrossRef]
30. Lang, T. Campus sustainability initiatives and performance: Do they correlate? Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ.
2015, 16, 474–490. [CrossRef]
31. National Bureau of Statistics of China (NBSC). China Statistical Yearbook; China Statistics Press: Beijing, China,
2012.
32. Corbusier, L. When the Cathedrals were White; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1964.
33. Kottek, M.; Grieser, J.; Beck, C.; Rudolf, B.; Rubel, F. World map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification
updated. Meteorol. Z. 2006, 15, 259–263. [CrossRef]
34. Briggs, R.S.; Lucas, R.G.; Taylor, Z.T. Climate classification for building energy codes and standards:
Part 1-development process. Trans. Soc. Heat. Refrig. Air Cond. Eng. 2003, 109, 109–121.
35. Stewart, I.D.; Oke, T.R. Local Climate Zones for Urban Temperature Studies. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 2012,
93, 1879–1900. [CrossRef]
36. Sonetti, G.; Kikuta, K. Report on Priorities of Criteria and Cross-Comparison POLITO-HOKUDAI Energy
Performance. Available online: http://www.uni-metrics.polito.it/documenti/universitycampusenergy
management.pdf (accessed on 4 January 2016).
37. Korhonen, J.; Seager, T.P. Beyond eco-efficiency: A resilience perspective. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2008, 17,
411–419. [CrossRef]
38. Sunikka-blank, M.; Galvin, R. Introducing the prebound effect: The gap between performance and actual
energy consumption. Build. Res. Inf. 2012, 40, 260–273. [CrossRef]
39. De Wilde, P. The gap between predicted and measured energy performance of buildings: A framework for
investigation. Autom. Constr. 2014, 41, 40–49. [CrossRef]
40. Chappells, H.; Shove, E. Debating the future of comfort: Environmental sustainability, energy consumption
and the indoor environment. Build. Res. Inf. 2005, 33, 32–40. [CrossRef]
41. Re3build. How to Create Sustainable Campus Assessment System. Available online: https://re3buildicu.
files.wordpress.com/2015/01/re3build-icu-t-ozasa-assessment-system-sustainable-campus-28jan2015.pdf
(accessed on 22 November 2015).
© 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons by Attribution
(CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Sustainability 08 00083 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 08 00083 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Keywords: university campus; sustainability assessment frameworks; energy indicators

Sustainability 2016, 8, 83; doi:10.3390/su8010083 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Assessment Tool Major Strengths Major Weaknesses

Assessment Tool Major Strengths Major Weaknesses

4. The POLITO-HOKUDAI Comparison

4.1. The POLITO Campus

‐80% ‐40% 0% 40% 80% 120% 160%

5.2. Cluster 2: Climate Zone

5.4. Beyond Current Energy Efficiency Indicators

Physical Operation and

POLITO Politecnico di Torino

‚ Energy and Buildings: towards energy efficiency

‚ Urban Outreach: towards integration in the city

Energy and Purchasing Urban Mobility and

No. UI Green Metric World University Ranking HOKUDAI POLITO

Table A2. Cont.

No. UI Green Metric World University Ranking HOKUDAI POLITO

Table A2. Cont.

No. UI Green Metric World University Ranking HOKUDAI POLITO

(1) Prof. R. Borchiellini (Vice Rector, Facility Manager)

(1) Living LAB—Gianni Carioni, manager

‚ Key stakeholders in the sustainability management at HOKUDAI:

No. Department (38)

You might also like